The Majority in Parliament has challenged claims that the withdrawal of Speaker Bagbin’s military guards is politically motivated.
According to the Majority, the current Speaker has had more protection than any other Speaker in history.
“He has four police officers in his known residence. He has three police officers in his secretariat, and he has five other policemen in and around the Speaker’s office block any day, any time,” the Majority said in a statement.
“Indeed, none of the previous Speakers had half of the Police cover as has been accorded Rt. Hon. Bagbin. It must be emphasised for the record that Rt. Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin has been served with the largest number of security personnel for his protection that none of the previous Speakers had,” it added.
Meanwhile, the Minority has described the withdrawal of the military guards by the Ghana Armed Forces as shameful.
“It is pertinent to note that the only reason given for the shameful withdrawal of Mr Speaker’s security detail is that the attachment was done without following the proper procedure. Curiously, the government fails and/ or omits to spell out the procedure for the attachment of military personnel to high profile personalities such as the speaker of Parliament. If the action of the military high command is in good faith, the irregularity in relation to the attachment could be rectified without necessarily having to withdraw the personnel,” the Minority said.
Adding, “The only logical conclusion a reasonable mind would draw with respect to the failure of government to indicate the nature of the procedure supposedly breached by Mr Speaker’s outfit is that proper procedure was followed for which reason the military high command had no difficulty attaching the military personnel in question to his office. Indeed, the Clerk to Parliament on the 21st January, 2021 did write to the chief of staff of the Armed Forces and duly requested the attachment of the military personnel in question. At this point, the chief of staff did not detect any procedural irregularities in relation to Mr Speaker’s request.However, one year on the same chief of staff who on behalf of the military high command granted the request now wants Ghanaians to believe that he acted in error in the first instance? The posturing of the chief of staff in this regard is to say the least preposterous”.
